Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that transitional credit under CGST Act is not available for capital goods in transit as of the appointed date. While Section 140 of CGST Act allows carrying forward unutilized CENVAT credit for both inputs and capital goods, sub-section (5) specifically distinguishes between them. The CENVAT Credit Rules 2017, which superseded the 2004 Rules, provides no facility for claiming credit of excise duty on capital goods in transit. Following RSPL Limited precedent, the court affirmed that treating inputs and capital goods differently is constitutionally valid under Article 14, as they form distinct classes. The distinction in transitional provisions between inputs and capital goods was found lawful and justified. Application dismissed.
HC held that transitional credit under CGST Act is not available for capital goods in transit as of the appointed date. While Section 140 of CGST Act allows carrying forward unutilized CENVAT credit for both inputs and capital goods, sub-section (5) specifically distinguishes between them. The CENVAT Credit Rules 2017, which superseded the 2004 Rules, provides no facility for claiming credit of excise duty on capital goods in transit. Following RSPL Limited precedent, the court affirmed that treating inputs and capital goods differently is constitutionally valid under Article 14, as they form distinct classes. The distinction in transitional provisions between inputs and capital goods was found lawful and justified. Application dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.